The UK General Politics Thread
•
Page 43

Renewed discussion of the subject following the apparently pre-meditated murders of those two policewomen. Can't help but feel Hammurabi might have had the right idea, and that this cunt should be pushed into a cell and have a hand-grenade chucked in with him.

Renewed discussion of the subject following the apparently pre-meditated murders of those two policewomen. Can't help but feel Hammurabi might have had the right idea, and that this cunt should be pushed into a cell and have a hand-grenade chucked in with him.

Anyone see the Newsnight take on LibDem shenanigans this evening? They seem to be suggesting that the Tories are supporting Vince Cable -with particular attention to his 'Cable Bank'- in the hope that the LibDems will get rid of Cleggy and replace him with Vince! Some other stuff about buggering up Labour's scheming to get Vince on board too.

I don't get it. Why would Tories seek to support their most ideological opponent? Shome mishtake shurely? Or is it shenanigans within shenanigans within shenanigans?.

After a few months of research and interaction with police officers, I get the distinct impression that the force could be radically improved by replacing a significant portion of the top ranking officers. The fish really does seem to rot from the head in this instance.

In all fairness, all we have to judge this situation is someone's word against another person's word. I agree completely that if what was claimed to have been said had been said, that it is entirely unacceptable, but we're just going on the officers words, are we not? And it's far from impossible that he could be lying.

Bremenacht wrote:
Anyone see the Newsnight take on LibDem shenanigans this evening? They seem to be suggesting that the Tories are supporting Vince Cable -with particular attention to his 'Cable Bank'- in the hope that the LibDems will get rid of Cleggy and replace him with Vince! Some other stuff about buggering up Labour's scheming to get Vince on board too.

I don't get it. Why would Tories seek to support their most ideological opponent? Shome mishtake shurely? Or is it shenanigans within shenanigans within shenanigans?.

Divide and conquer.

(Not that that will be needed with the Lib Dems come the next election when their vote collapses.)

The Andrew Mitchell affair is such a non story it boils down to a toff nosed bellend calling a couple of jobsworths "plebs".

That is the summation of the story, it has only got so many colunm inches because on the day it happened Cameron was giving a speech up in manchester declaring he was going to support the police "no matter what" after the two PCs got shot.

I saw no one calling for Ed Balls to be sacked when he used the death of a child to instigate a witch hunt against an under resourced social services department in order to furthur his own political carrer.

bobomb wrote:
so it's not really on her terms, it's on his terms, because she isn't real.

The Andrew Mitchell affair is such a non story it boils down to a toff nosed bellend calling a couple of jobsworths "plebs".

That is the summation of the story, it has only got so many colunm inches because on the day it happened Cameron was giving a speech up in manchester declaring he was going to support the police "no matter what" after the two PCs got shot.

I saw no one calling for Ed Balls to be sacked when he used the death of a child to instigate a witch hunt against an under resourced social services department in order to furthur his own political carrer.

bobomb wrote:
so it's not really on her terms, it's on his terms, because she isn't real.

To be fair it would have been a non story if he hadn't (or seemingly so) lied twice about what happened. If he'd just apologised for swearing and calling the guy a pleb then it would have blown over by now.

The problem now its the word of the Police against him - him saying he didn't use the word plebs or swearing (although he appears to have admitted that now) and the Police, and this leaked log saying otherwise.

I don't see the correlation between this and Baby P though (if that's what you are referring to), that just seems to be a false argument to try and deflect from this one.

He's made it worse on himself. Apologise, be truthful and move on. Simple.

I think the point being made is that something irrelevant yet tabloidy as some posh tory bloke calling people plebs get so much attention while a genuine amoral exploitation of power gets glossed over reflects badly on the media and how it reports politics, not that the two stories had anything in common.

jamievilla wrote:
To be fair it would have been a non story if he hadn't (or seemingly so) lied twice about what happened. If he'd just apologised for swearing and calling the guy a pleb then it would have blown over by now.

The problem now its the word of the Police against him - him saying he didn't use the word plebs or swearing (although he appears to have admitted that now) and the Police, and this leaked log saying otherwise.

I don't see the correlation between this and Baby P though (if that's what you are referring to), that just seems to be a false argument to try and deflect from this one.

He's made it worse on himself. Apologise, be truthful and move on. Simple.

I was just highlighting the Baby P case to show that the press reaction to Mithchell is dispropianate in that it has cast him as some abhorrent monster who should be placed in the stocks and be flogged for commiting the crime of insulting a police officer. I find what Balls did with Baby P far more sicking that if Mitchell had used the John Terry defence.

I agree that in a sane and rational world he would simply apologise and a line would be drawn under it. The problem is that if he admitted that he was in the wrong then labour would jump on it and say that Cameron was "proteting him" and should be sacked, while folding it into the wider narrative of tories not caring about "brave" public sector workers.

Mitchell is sticking to the first rule of surviving a media political shit storm "never apologise, never explain"

bobomb wrote:
so it's not really on her terms, it's on his terms, because she isn't real.